Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Can blood obtained by a vamp through a "steal" strike be
>used to heal damage that the vamp takes from the opponent
>in the same combat round?
Yes. This is errata to the rules.
>Oh, and one other Q on aggravated damage - the way it's handled
>seems to have changed in the new rules. In the original rules,
>the first point of agg damage inflicted was not healed by removing
>a blood token from the vamp - it just sent them straight to topor.
>Unless I'm totally mistaken, it looked like agg damage works more
>like regular damage now, except that it sends you to torpor of course.
>That is, a strike of one agg damage would remove one blood from the
>victim and send them to torpor, wheras in the orig rules it just would
>send the victim to torpor with no blood loss.
That's correct.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Jeremy York (bea...@netcom.com) wrote:
> Can blood obtained by a vamp through a "steal" strike be
> used to heal damage that the vamp takes from the opponent
> in the same combat round?
I believe so...
> In the advanced game, there is *no* explicit statement of
> rules on this (that I could find anyway), only an example.
> In the example given, again a 3 capacity Tremere with 2 blood
> on her steals a blood and is hit for 3 damage. In the example,
> she goes to torpor - her 2 blood that she started go to heal 2
> of the damage, she can't heal the third with the stolen blood,
> and wham - torporized tremere...with one (stolen) blood on her...
What page is this on? Tom ruled recently that blood stolen can be used
immediately to heal damage taken...at least that's what I thought he
ruled. Tom?
> Unless I'm totally mistaken, it looked like agg damage works more
> like regular damage now, except that it sends you to torpor of course.
> That is, a strike of one agg damage would remove one blood from the
> victim and send them to torpor, wheras in the orig rules it just would
> send the victim to torpor with no blood loss.
You're not mistaken. You can burn a 0 blood vampire with 1 aggravated
damage, instead of 2 (anyone got a pulled fangs for trade? :)
-ben
"You are in a maze of twisty little messages, all different."
Benjamin D Matthews (matt...@utdallas.edu) wrote:
: Jeremy York (bea...@netcom.com) wrote:
: > Can blood obtained by a vamp through a "steal" strike be
: > used to heal damage that the vamp takes from the opponent
: > in the same combat round?: I believe so...
I know so. Tom ruled on my post. Here is the quote from him including
most of my original post:
=========start included post =====
=From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
=Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
=Subject: Re: TOM: theft of vitae vs zipgun > timing
=Date: 6 Feb 1996 02:02:44 GMT
=Message-ID: <4f6cs4$k...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
=References: <4f0uoh$1...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>
=Graham H. Watt <g...@saba.kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
=>Sarah Cobbler (with 3 blood of 4) bleeds prey.
=>Sasha Miklos (DS:ravnos with 2 of 2 blood) blocks.
=>Combat ensues.
=>Sarah does not maneuver.
=>Miklos gets 1 maneuver from ZipGun pulled from hand.
=>Miklos makes it long range.
=>Sarah uses Theft of Vitae as strike, (steal 2 blood) superior.
=>Miklos uses Zip Gun with dragonbreath rounds.
=>
=>Ok. Here are the questions.
=>
=>1) According to the rulebook, stolen blood can be used by the stealer
=>immediately. Does that mean that miklos went to zero blood and burned
=>before getting off her strike? Stolen being resolved before the
=>blocker's strike? Does Miklos get a strike at all?
=
=Sarah's and Sasha's strikes go off at the same time. Sarah steals
=the blood before she takes any of the damage. She can then burn this
=blood to heal the damage inflicted on her, even though she stole
=more blood than she could hold.
=
=>2) When is the damage from using the Zip Gun accounted for on Miklos?
=> When the ZipGun card is used for the maneuver before the acting
=> minion's strike?
=
=The damage is dealt during strike resolution.
=
=> Does it affect the amount of blood that Sarah can steal?
=
=No. She gets the blood before he can even try to prevent the damage.
=
=>We did this:
=>sarah got the blood, but miklos got her strike and sent sarah to topor
=>with the aggravated damage. Miklos then burned.
=
=Miklos simply goes into torpor. She would only be burned in the basic game
=(errata to rulebook).
=
=Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
=aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
=
==========end included old post=====
: > In the advanced game, there is *no* explicit statement of: > rules on this (that I could find anyway), only an example.
This is where splitting VAMPIRE into the basic and advanced (Jyhad)
variants was an extremely short sighted idea. Dumbing down and making
conflicting rules within supposedly the same game was wrong.
I highly suggest you get ahold of an OLD Jyhad rulebook and use the
errata in the Duelist and from this newsgroup to augment it. Also, never
play the "basic" game. The complexity and interaction and ability of
vampires to come back after getting stomped into topor is what makes it
so challenging and fun.
Playing the "use all the cards you paid for" variant,
Graham => g...@kuentos.guam.net
--
"You're one of the young ones... you don't want to mess with me, do you?"
Jeanette (Forever Knight)
Graham H. Watt (g...@saba.kuentos.guam.net) wrote:
: : > In the advanced game, there is *no* explicit statement of: : > rules on this (that I could find anyway), only an example.: This is where splitting VAMPIRE into the basic and advanced (Jyhad)
: variants was an extremely short sighted idea. Dumbing down and making
: conflicting rules within supposedly the same game was wrong.
I think it's more a matter of bad editing. Nothing inherently bad
about breaking the rules into two chunks, as long as it's done so that
there aren't any conflicting rules between the two. And so that
the reader is prepared for the changes on their way in the standard game.
WotC did ok but not great on this latter point. On the former point,
since Tom has stated this rulebook eratta, there aren't really any
"conflicting" rules between the two (I'd call burning vamps instead of
toporizing them, and not allowing press/maneuver/intercept, "simplifications"
rather than conflicting rules).
And there *is* value to the basic game; I'm going to teach the game to some
friends who are not hard-core gamers by any means, and playing the basic
game once with them will help them master some of the essential stuff
before we make the plunge into the full-blown game.
The criticism I would level against how the game was split into a basic
and advanced game, is that the guidelines on which cards to leave
out are pretty weak. "If you don't understand it, leave it out" just
doesn't cut the mustard...I went through a set of cold Jyhad decks I use to
teach people the game, and there were quite a few cards that I pulled
because either they were useless (in the basic game) or had stuff buried
in the fine print that would make them inappropriate for the basic game.
What is needed is either a list of cards to leave out or some kind
of marking on the cards themselves to indicate whether they should be
used in the basic game. Not having these makes it harder for the new
player to sit down with their cards and learn the basics...and wasn't
that the whole idea of the basic game?
: I highly suggest you get ahold of an OLD Jyhad rulebook and use the: errata in the Duelist and from this newsgroup to augment it.
*shrug* I have plenty of old rulebooks, but doubt that I'll ever give
them another look, except to figure out whether something's changed. The
current book is the one that WotC supports, so I'll stick with that, thanks.
: Also, never: play the "basic" game. The complexity and interaction and ability of
: vampires to come back after getting stomped into topor is what makes it
: so challenging and fun.
I will play the basic game if I'm teaching the game to someone. My
first couple of games of Jyhad were somewhat bewildering, and I had read
the rulebook cover to cover in advance. I made it just fine, but
then I'm a hard core gamer. Some of the people I'd like to teach the
game to are not. And the rules that allow that complexity and interaction
might be daunting to them at first.
So, I wouldn't say "never play the basic game"...I'd say "don't bother
playing it more than once or twice (unless of course you're using it
to teach the game to others).
--
Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)